Africa in Copenhagen Recap

What did Africa really get out of Copenhagen? A lot, and at the same time not that much. The following summarizes some of the major political and financial gains, and some of the issues that remain unresolved.

African solidarity worked

Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi followed through on his promise of leading a single African delegation to Copenhagen by maintaining broad continuity in the Africa position, in spite of the myriad political obstacles. As a result, Africa gained political prestige, broad popular support from the NGO community and widespread public recognition in the press. The coalition also showed how politically adept it could be. It managed to use the G-77 as a vehicle to advance long-term interests with the big emerging markets of China and India, while also working to secure more immediate and specific objectives for its own citizens, such as firming up a political agreement on reducing emissions from deforestation. Balancing leadership roles between South African President Jacob Zuma, (who negotiated the final deal along with India, China, Brazil and China), G-77 Chair Lumumba from Sudan, and Prime Minister Meles ensured that Africa had broad political reach and the flexibility necessary to influence negotiations at every level. Delegates at the next conference in Mexico this year will have to take into serious consideration how Africa figures in to the next round of proposals.

Political commitment on key issues

African officials can be happy about some key political commitments made by the West, as well. There is a genuine will by Western leaders to provide substantial financing for green investment. In particular, “quick-start funding” ― pledges amounting to about $30 billion over three years, of which Africa will get about 40%― provides a degree of political certainty necessary to draw out funding from other sources. The funds will spur the development of an equitable, standardized funding/financing platform, the lack of which to date has contributed to slow growth in green investment. The Copenhagen Accord also outlined its intent to “immediate[ly] establish a mechanism” for reducing the emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). The commitment holds significant promise for Africa, especially Congo Basin countries, which are home to the second largest forest in the world.

What it didn’t get: Adaptation and an actual deal

For all its gains, a lot remains undone for Africa after Copenhagen. A true global deal with teeth was not signed and funds for adaptation remain basically off the table. Less than $150 million a year is currently devoted to adaptation, with estimates of the continent’s adaptation needs hovering around $20 billion per year. In comparison to mitigation efforts, these numbers look even worse: nearly 85% of climate related projects funded in Africa are dedicated to mitigation, with adaptation around 13% and REDD at less than 3%.